Bill C-10 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the January 27, 2009 Budget. In particular, it
(a) increases by 7.5% above their 2008 levels the basic personal amount and the upper limits for the two lowest personal income tax brackets, thereby also increasing the income levels at which income testing begins for the base benefit under the Canada Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefit supplement;
(b) increases by $1,000 the amount on which the Age Credit is calculated;
(c) increases to $25,000 the maximum amount eligible for withdrawal under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) introduces amendments to the rules related to Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds to allow for recognition of losses in accounts between the time of the annuitant’s death and final distribution of property from the account;
(e) repeals the interest deductibility constraints in section 18.2 of the Income Tax Act;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) increases to $500,000 the annual amount of active business income eligible for the 11% small business income tax rate and makes related amendments;
(h) clarifies rules relating to timing of acquisition of control of a corporation; and
(i) creates cost savings through electronic filing of tax information.
In addition, Part 1 implements income tax measures that were referenced in the January 27, 2009 Budget and that were originally proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008. In particular, it
(a) clarifies the application of the excess corporate holdings rules for private foundations;
(b) increases the amount that corporations will be able to pay as “eligible dividends”;
(c) enacts several regulatory amendments that complement and complete measures enacted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(d) introduces minor adjustments to the Tax-Free Savings Account rules and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit rules included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(e) implements rules in respect of donations of medicines; and
(f) reduces the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures referred to in the January 27, 2009 Budget that either were themselves previously announced or flow directly from previously announced measures. In particular, it
(a) implements technical changes relating to specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships and new tax rules to facilitate the conversion of these entities into corporations;
(b) contains amendments to take into account financial institution accounting changes;
(c) extends the general treatment of capital gains and losses on an acquisition of control of a corporation to gains and losses that result from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in respect of debt denominated in foreign currency;
(d) enhances the carry-forward for investment tax credits;
(e) implements amendments relating to the computation of income, gains and losses of a foreign affiliate;
(f) implements amendments to the functional currency tax reporting rules;
(g) implements minor tax amendments relating to interprovincial allocation of corporate taxable income, the Wage Earner Protection Program and the Canada-United States tax treaty’s rules for cross-border pensions;
(h) provides for an extension of time for income tax assessments that are consequential to provincial reassessments;
(i) ensures the appropriate application of the Income Tax Act’s trust rules to certain arrangements and institutions under Quebec civil law;
(j) enacts regulatory amendments relating to prescribed amounts for automobile expenses and benefits, eligible medical expenses, and the tax treatment of foreign affiliate active business income earned in a jurisdiction with which Canada has concluded a tax information exchange agreement;
(k) introduces rules to reduce the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn from a Registered Retirement Income Fund or from a variable benefit money purchase pension plan by 25% for 2008, and allows related re-contributions;
(l) extends the deadline for Registered Disability Savings Plan contributions; and
(m) modifies the provisions relating to amateur athletic trusts.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to implement measures to reduce the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the January 27, 2009 Budget to
(a) reduce Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under other tariff treatments on a number of tariff items relating to machinery and equipment imported on or after January 28, 2009;
(b) divide tariff item 9801.10.00 into two separate tariff items pertaining to conveyances and containers, respectively, and make two technical corrections, effective January 28, 2009; and
(c) modify the tariff treatment of milk protein substances, effective September 8, 2008.
Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to extend regular benefit entitlements by five weeks. It also provides that a pilot project ceases to have effect. In addition, it amends that Act to provide that the cost of benefit enhancement measures under that Act, provided for in the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, are not to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account. Finally, it sets the premium rate provided for under that Act for the years 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2010.
Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to take, subject to certain conditions, a number of measures intended to promote the stability or maintain the efficiency of the financial system, including financial markets, in Canada.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to provide the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with greater flexibility to enhance its ability to safeguard financial stability in Canada. The Division also adds Tax-Free Saving Accounts as a distinct category for the purposes of deposit insurance. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 3 of Part 5 amends the Export Development Act to, among other things, expand the Export Development Corporation’s mandate to include the support and development of domestic trade and business opportunities for a period of two years. The period may be extended by the Governor in Council. Division 3 also increases the Corporation’s authorized capital.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount in relation to a borrower. It also increases individual lenders’ cap on claims. These amendments will apply to new loans made after March 31, 2009.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends a number of Acts governing federal financial institutions to improve access to credit and strengthen the financial system in Canada, including amendments that will
(a) provide new authority for further safeguards to promote the stability of the financial system;
(b) enhance consumer protection by establishing new measures to help consumers of financial products; and
(c) implement other technical measures to strengthen the financial sector framework in Canada.
Division 7 of Part 5 provides for payments to be made to provinces and territories, provides authority to the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements respecting securities regulation with provinces and territories and enacts the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes, including infrastructure and housing.
Part 7 amends Part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to create a tiered approval process for works in order to streamline the approval process and to exclude certain classes of works and works on certain classes of navigable waters from the approval process. This Part further amends Part I of the Act to clarify the scope of the application of that Part to works owned or previously owned by the Crown, to provide for the application of the Act to bridges over the St. Lawrence River and to add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 7 also amends the Act to clarify the provisions related to obstacles and obstructions to navigation. The Act is also amended by adding administration and enforcement powers, consolidating all offence provisions, increasing fines and requiring a review of the Act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Division 1 of Part 8 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program Regulations to provide that unpaid wages for which an individual may receive payment under the Wage Earner Protection Program include unpaid severance pay and termination pay.
Division 2 of Part 8 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Chief Actuary of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to report on financial assistance provided under that Act; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to suspend or deny financial assistance to all those who are qualifying students in respect of a designated educational institution.
Division 2 of Part 8 also amends both the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to, among other things,
(a) terminate all obligations of a borrower with respect to risk-shared loans and guaranteed loans if the borrower dies;
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to require any person who has received financial assistance or a guaranteed student loan to provide that Minister with documents or information for the purpose of verifying compliance with those Acts; and
(c) authorize that Minister to terminate or deny financial assistance in certain circumstances.
Division 3 of Part 8 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide express authority for agent Crown corporations to lease their property, restrict the appointment of employees of a Crown corporation to its board of directors, require Crown corporations to hold annual public meetings, clarify Treasury Board’s duties to indemnify Crown corporation directors and officers, permit more flexibility in the frequency of special examinations of Crown corporations, and require the reports of special examinations to be submitted to the appropriate Minister and Treasury Board and made public. This Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 and amends the method by which fiscal equalization payments will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also amends the method by which the Canada Health Transfer is calculated for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2009 and ending on March 31, 2014.
Part 10 enacts the Expenditure Restraint Act. The purpose of that Act is to put in place a reasonable and an affordable approach to compensation across the federal public sector in support of responsible fiscal management in a difficult economic environment.
It sets out rules governing economic increases to the rates of pay of unionized and non-unionized employees for periods that begin during the period that begins on April 1, 2006 and ends on March 31, 2011. It also continues certain other terms and conditions at their current levels. It preserves the right of collective bargaining with regard to other matters and it does not affect the right to strike.
The Act does not preclude the continued development of workplace improvements by employers and employees’ bargaining agents through the National Joint Council or other bodies that they may agree on. It also permits bargaining agents and employers to agree to the amendment of certain terms and conditions of collective agreements or arbitral awards.
Part 11 enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that proactive measures are taken to provide employees in female predominant job groups with equitable compensation.
It requires public sector employers that have non-unionized employees to determine periodically whether any equitable compensation matters exist in the workplace and, if so, to prepare a plan to resolve them. With respect to public sector employers that have unionized employees, the employers and the bargaining agents are to resolve those matters through the collective bargaining process.
It sets out the procedure for informing employees as to whether an equitable compensation assessment was required to be conducted and, if so, how it was conducted, and how any equitable compensation matters were resolved. It also establishes a recourse process for employees if the Act is not complied with.
Finally, since the Act puts in place a comprehensive equitable compensation scheme for public sector employees, this Part amends the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the provisions of that Act dealing with gender-based wage discrimination no longer apply to public sector employers. It extends the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to allow it to hear equitable compensation complaints and to provide other services related to equitable compensation in the public sector.
Part 12 amends the Competition Act. The amendments include
(a) introducing a dual-track approach to agreements between competitors, with a limited criminal anti-cartel provision and a civil provision to address other agreements that substantially lessen or prevent competition;
(b) providing that bid-rigging includes agreements or arrangements to withdraw bids or tenders;
(c) repealing the provisions dealing with price discrimination and predatory pricing, replacing the criminal resale price maintenance provision with a new civil provision to address price maintenance practices that have an adverse effect on competition, and repealing all provisions dealing specifically with the airline industry;
(d) introducing an administrative monetary penalty for cases of abuse of dominant position, increasing the maximum amount of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive marketing cases, and increasing the maximum fines or terms of imprisonment, or both, for agreements or arrangements between competitors, bid-rigging, criminal false or misleading representations, deceptive telemarketing, deceptive notice of winning a prize, obstruction of Competition Bureau investigations and failure to comply with prohibition orders or production orders;
(e) clarifying that, in proceedings under section 52, 74.01 or 74.02, it is not necessary to establish that false or misleading representations are made to the public in Canada or are made in a place to which the public has access, and clarifying that the “general impression test” applies to all deceptive marketing practices in sections 74.01 and 74.02;
(f) providing that the court may make an order in respect of cases of false or misleading representations to require the person who engaged in the conduct to compensate persons affected by the conduct, and may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets if the Commissioner of Competition intends to ask for such a compensation order; and
(g) introducing a two-stage merger review process for notifiable transactions, increased merger pre-notification thresholds and a reduced merger review limitation period.
Part 13 amends the Investment Canada Act so that the review of an investment will be applied only to the more significant investments. It also amends the Act to allow more information to be made public. This Part also provides for the review of foreign investments in Canada that could threaten national security and allows the Governor in Council to take any measures that the Governor in Council considers advisable to protect national security, such as prohibiting a non-Canadian from implementing an investment.
Part 14 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with flexibility to increase the foreign ownership limit from the existing levels to a maximum of 49%.
Part 15 amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act in relation to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Air Canada regarding constraints imposed on the issue, transfer and ownership of shares. It provides for the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions imposing limits on non-resident share ownership and the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions respecting the enforcement of these constraints.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18 which is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other acts.

From some briefings that were provided in terms of the content of the bill, I want to highlight a couple of the aspects of the bill. I also want to thank the member for St. John's East for highlighting some of the challenges that will be brought forward in committee. The NDP is firmly in support of the bill and the member for St. John's East has identified a few problems that could be resolved at committee, and hopefully the government and other members of the House will take a look at some of the shortfalls in the bill.

The bill aims to make RCMP pensions more portable by allowing for the expansion of existing election for prior service provisions and permitting the introduction of pension transfer agreements.

The pension portability schemes are generally enacted to improve recruitment options especially for lateral applicants. Without pension portability provisions, such as those allowed by Bill C-18, pension credits with former employers, for example, with a municipal police force, would not be transferrable to the RCMP pension plan, making a lateral transfer to the RCMP less attractive.

The introduction of pension transfer arrangements will allow the RCMP to enter into formal arrangements with other Canadian pension plans to permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Once implemented the pension transfer agreement sections will bring the RCMP pension plan into line with the federal public service pension plan which has approximately 770 pension transfer agreements.

We can see from that very brief outline that this is a very technical bill, but we can see that these kinds of pension agreements are already in place within the public service. It seems reasonable that the RCMP, who play such a critical role in many of our communities, should be able to have access to the same kinds of arrangements.

The member for St. John's East touched upon this, but I want to remind the House that these proposed changes have actually been in the works since 1995. Once again, what we have is long delays in dealing with some legislative amendments that could have been dealt with more than 10 to 15 years ago. It happened in 1995, in 1999, and it happened again in 2005.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals simply could not get their act together in terms of addressing this anomaly.

I am pleased that it has now come before the House, but I want to touch on a couple of other points that I know the member for St. John's East raised. I want to touch on them just so that people understand that the bill is still not perfect.

There have been some questions raised about the anomalies in the fact that although current recruits are being paid during training, previous recruits were not being paid. There are some concerns that they will not get the pension credit for that six months of unpaid training. That has changed, but there are current RCMP officers who are serving, who do not have that pension credit or the possibility of that pension credit. Therefore, I am sure that will be raised in committee.

There are other concerns that have been raised around the fact that civilian employees for the RCMP are treated differently. Again, I am sure that will be raised in committee with an opportunity for potential amendments.

I just want to talk about the importance of this for a moment. In the briefing that was provided it talked about recruitment and retention. In my community of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the RCMP are a vital part of the community. The RCMP is our police force. In the province of British Columbia, many of our communities are in that position. I know in Newfoundland that is also the case.

Therefore, this bill is an important one in terms of both recruitment of officers and ongoing retention. I know that in my own community of North Cowichan, as a previous municipal councillor I was part of the protective services committee. One of our roles was examining the agreement that we had between the RCMP, the province and then of course the municipalities. We were consistently short of officers.

I live in a very beautiful part of the country. It was not an issue around RCMP officers wanting to work in my community. It was the fact that recruitment was often an issue. Retention was an issue. There were some challenges with leave provisions. For example, when an officer went on maternity leave at that time, there were no provisions to replace that officer.

Bill C-18 is a very important factor when we talk about recruitment and retention. In many remote communities, it is very difficult to find officers to serve there. We need to make sure we are providing a compensation package, which includes pensions, that is very attractive so that we can recruit and retain.

There is another issue that has come up and has been mentioned a number of times in the House. When Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, was put forward, it negated the agreement that had been put in place with RCMP officers around wage improvements. I know members throughout the House have been receiving letters, phone calls and emails about the unfairness of this.

I have an email from an officer who wanted to make sure that members understood the potential impact of the negating of that agreement in Bill C-10. The email states:

For the last 135 years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been at the heart of our communities, serving Canadians and keeping us safe.

From stopping liquor trafficking and gaining the respect and confidence of Aboriginal peoples to fighting child sexual exploitation and clamping down on gang and gun crime; Canada's national police force has always counted on men and women of sound constitution and good character to serve and protect. And for more than a century, that's exactly what thousands have done.

On December 11, 2008, Treasury Board modified a previously signed wage agreement that ensured the RCMP could compete for the best and brightest new talent and offer an incentive for seasoned members to stay with the force. The original agreement was supported by the Commissioner, the Minister of Public Safety and approved by Treasury Board as recently as June 2008.

Changes to this previously-enshrined agreement will inflict irreparable damage to ongoing efforts to retain current members and will have serious consequences for recruiting new cadets--a stated priority for this government--who do not qualify for incentives afforded to members with more than five years experience.

This Treasury Board decision poses long-term challenges for bolstering public safety in Canada. Without significant changes, the legacy of this decision will be a series of negative and enduring repercussions for RCMP capacity building; particularly when it comes to recruiting new cadets.

Further on, the email goes on to state:

I write to ask that you act to protect the integrity of Canadian public safety; frontline RCMP officers ask only that the existing, signed agreement be allowed to stand. In full-recognition of the serious economic challenges we face as a country, the men and women of the RCMP are committed to abide by the letter and the spirit of that agreement for the next two years.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the RCMP, of course, played a significant role in this country's development and expansion, and that it will continue to play a very important role in public safety in our communities.

Again, I come back to my own community of Nanaimo-Cowichan. I know RCMP officers there are absolutely dedicated women and men who often contribute a lot of their own personal time to be involved with youth, first nations and a variety of community organizations. They often sit on committees contributing in a very positive way to the overall health and well-being of our communities.

I would argue that we should ensure once again to not only look at pension changes that will significantly contribute to recruitment and retention but that we also look at negotiated signed agreements. I know the member for St. John's East raised the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the RCMP to form a union and the current government continues to fight that.

The RCMP has a staff association in place to represent its interests. My understanding is that RCMP members have stated that they would agree not to strike, but there is no reason why, in a democratic country, our police force could not have the mechanism to organize and represent itself in terms of labour management issues.

One of the reasons that this discussion around pensions is so critical is because in today's current economic climate there are some serious challenges with pensions. One of the elements that was raised in a current pension issues and trends paper talks about bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. Fortunately, at this point, the RCMP's pension fund is not in this kind of situation and would not likely ever be.

Many Canadians are very concerned about what is happening to their pensions in the current economic climate. One of the things that has been identified is this bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. It states:

The laws concerning bankruptcy protection and pension insurance are closely related to the rules governing pension funding. If pensions are fully funded when employers enter bankruptcy protection, then bankruptcy laws do not matter much to the fate of the pension plan. On the other hand, if pension plans are underfunded when the employer becomes bankrupt, then the question of the nature of the claim that the pension fund has on the bankrupt company is critical, as is the question of whether the pension deficiency is insured.

This is just one aspect of some very serious problems going on with pensions right now. The member from Hamilton will be going out to the public to talk about the kinds of reforms that are needed to pension plans.

Bill C-18 talks about portability. Many members will be surprised that I am quoting from a C.D. Howe Institute commentary on pensions, but the portability of pensions is an absolutely critical aspect. Again, for RCMP officers we are recognize that portability of their pensions is extremely important. Members of municipal police forces should have the ability to move from the municipal police force to the RCMP and not lose their pension credits. It is a very important aspect.

The C.D. Howe Institute is talking about pension portability from job to job across Canada. It is not talking specifically about RCMP officers; it is talking about all Canadians. I would argue that as we set the standard for RCMP officers to have that portability, we should make sure that other Canadians have that pension portability as well.

In this particular case, the C.D. Howe Institute makes another recommendation. To put it into context, it says, “Canadians must understand that they all do not need to become experts in life-cycle finance and investments to achieve this goal”. It is talking about maintaining standards of living in retirement. The member for Sault Ste. Marie has been a tireless advocate on poverty generally but certainly on poverty as it relates to seniors. One of the aspects that significantly impacts on seniors is changes that were made to the Canada pension plan.

In the context of the Canada pension plan, I am getting a number of emails from people who are concerned about what is happening with the investments in the Canada pension plan. People want us to raise that here in the House. They are concerned about how the Canada pension plan is currently managed. However, that is outside the scope of Bill C-18.

The C.D. Howe Institute indicates that Canadians should be insisting that their elected representatives and employers play informed and constructive roles in inserting the major missing piece in Canada's current pension system that would deal with the inadequate coverage in retirement savings facing millions of Canadians.

Part of the issue is that, first of all, many Canadians simply do not have a pension plan. We are talking about portability in the context of Bill C-18, that pension plans in Canada largely are not portable and we cannot take them from job to job, and because we are talking about this with Bill C-18, I would argue that at some point we need to introduce legislation that talks about portability across this country.

I touched on the bankruptcy provisions. Many pension plans in this country are underfunded. If a company goes into bankruptcy protection, workers are at risk. In my riding we see forestry company after forestry company laying off people. There are some concerns as these companies go into bankruptcy protection with their underfunded pensions that workers who have worked 30 and 40 years, rather than going into retirement, have to go back to work. It is critical that we, as a House, perhaps using Bill C-18 as a kickoff point, look at conducting a broader pension review. I know the government has been talking about examining what is happening with pensions, but we need to move on this very quickly.

Women have been very concerned about what is happening with pensions because many women do not have either a private or a public pension. We are very concerned that we will see an increase in seniors living in poverty.

Many women have been in part-time, seasonal, contractual employment. This means that when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, they will only have access to the Canada pension plan, and because they have been in that kind of part-time, seasonal, contract employment, they will not have the full Canada pension plan.

The group WE*ACT has put together a number of very good proposals for overall reforms to the pension system. Unless we act quickly, we are going to see a spike in seniors poverty once again. I would encourage the House to use Bill C-18 as a catalyst to move quickly.

Again with Bill C-18, we have seen a bill that was looking at amendments back in 1995. We simply cannot wait that long for the kind of pension reform that is necessary. There is a wave of baby boomers, the first edge of which is turning 65 as we speak, that is going to change the face of retirement in this country. All too often we ear very sad stories about people who, after working for over 40 years, come up to retirement and find that they have to work at a McJob to survive in retirement.

There are a whole number of other issues that are facing seniors as they retire, such as the lack of availability of long-term care, home care support, access to prescription drugs, access to hospitals, and access to all kinds of other support programs for seniors. That is outside the scope of Bill C-18, but I would hope that we would put together a proactive package that looks at that whole range of issues.

We often hear in this House of the social determinants of health. I would argue that we also need to look at the social determinants of aging, and at such things as housing and income security. Because there is this wave of baby boomers coming up to retirement, this would be an opportunity for us to be proactive and we could put together a package that would have some meaningful impact on people as they retire.

In conclusion, Bill C-18 is a very important move toward protecting our ability to make sure that our communities are kept safe. It is important that we put together a package that will encourage young men and women to see the RCMP as a viable career opportunity, and make sure that the pensions help in our ability to retain police officers.

I am very pleased to say that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. I look forward to hearing from the member for St. John's East about testimony that will come forward at committee. Perhaps some amendments will be made to deal with some of the deficiencies that are currently in the bill before the House. Hopefully it will help us to ensure that our communities stay safe and well protected.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for his fine speech and for his indication that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I want to ask him something specifically about the importance of this legislation. In the province of British Columbia and in Newfoundland as well RCMP officers in many of our communities are the only police force. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the RCMP is the only police force there. I also understand that in many of our communities, and again this is the case in my community, we often have difficulty in filling the vacancies for RCMP officers. The bill currently before us may help in some of that recruitment and retention.

I wonder if the member could comment first of all on some of the challenges he sees with recruitment and retention of RCMP officers, but also how the implications in Bill C-10, which roll back that agreement, will contribute to some challenges for the RCMP in recruiting the members that many of our communities rely on. Rural and remote communities are often not the first community of choice. If we cannot make sure that RCMP officers are treated fairly with their wages and pensions, we are going to have increasing difficulties. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did indeed read those notes, and it struck me that although the Senate had looked at Bill C-10 and perhaps brushed part of the issue around the Equitable Compensation Act, it hadn't been given the full discussion it required.

Based on the response we're hearing across the women's community, and the concerns raised, and our obligation as a committee to examine issues that impact women and to be their voice in this Parliament, I believe it is incumbent upon us to take a little bit of time to hear about the impact this bill is having and what the consequences are, as they roll out, for women. I think that's our job, Madam Chair. I believe it will not detract from our other study. It will be four extra meetings, and there are precedents for having extra meetings. I think this is too important an issue to allow any minor concern to get in the way of our doing what I perceive to be our job.

[Katie Walmsley, President, Investment Counsel Association of Canada]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee today and provide input on your deliberations on the Canadian financial sector, protection of investors, and the stability of the Canadian financial system.

I will endeavour to be brief in my comments, so as to leave sufficient time for questions. My colleague, Thomas Johnston, will also be making his own remarks. We will be very happy to answer your questions. To begin, allow me to tell you who we are.

The Investment Counsel Association of Canada represents investment management firms across Canada. We invest the assets of private individuals who are saving for retirement, and we invest the assets for pension plans across Canada.

We have 115 companies that are members of the association. They represent every province and every territory in Canada. Our members are managing total assets of $700 billion for their clients.

As you can imagine, the turmoil in the financial sector during recent months has been a grave concern for our members and their clients. The market collapse has been broader and deeper than many downturns in recent years. With millions of baby boomers within 10 to 20 years of retirement, the urgency of an economic recovery that will restore Canadians' capital and confidence as soon as possible is critical.

We want to interject to applaud the federal government for some of the measures you have taken recently in the federal budget, measures that we believe are important first steps toward strengthening the economy: the stimulus package announced in the budget, with $40 billion in stimulus over the next two years; support for the liquidity measures through various measures, which have been commented on in some of the presentations; and support for the OECD in terms of the GDP spending that has been recommended.

We believe government intervention is important, but we also believe it is critical that the federal government look at ways to restore confidence of Canadians in investing in the capital markets and to encourage saving to ensure that they can meet their retirement goals. Confidence in the markets is key, and confidence in the markets is necessary not only for short- and medium-term credit, but also for encouraging savings and investment in the country.

What can the government do? We are going to focus on about six specific initiatives that we believe could restore confidence in the financial system and help Canadians rebuild some of their lost capital. I want to highlight that we truly believe some of these measures would immediately increase the return that Canadians are seeing in their statements, in their investment portfolios, and in their retirement savings. We will end with a key point that our association has been on record for supporting for many years, which is to move forward as soon as possible with a single securities regulator.

The first recommendation we have is that GST be eliminated on investment management fees.

If there is any lesson Canadians have learned during recent months with the economic turmoil, it is the importance of having good investment advice and selecting advisers who clearly understand their retirement goals, understand and are comfortable with their investment philosophy, and communicate with them in a manner that allows them to understand their financial position. Presently, investment management fees are subject to GST. In provinces with harmonized tax, the amount paid by consumers for investment management services is even higher. If Ontario moves forward with the harmonized tax, investors will pay an additional 8% in investment management services. It is important to note that investment managers are able to reclaim the GST or the harmonized tax, but investors are not.

In this time when individual investors are in more need than ever of professional investment advice and pension plans are turning to investment managers to turn around their portfolios to meet their pension plan commitments, it is critical that the federal government consider this as one way to help Canadians rebuild their lost capital. For this reason, we urge the government to consider the elimination of GST on investment management fees. This would restore some capital to individual Canadians and their pension plans and would also encourage some Canadians to seek advice in pursuing their retirement goals.

The second recommendation we wanted to make is with regard to a former Bill C-10. I don't mean the recent budget bill, but Bill C-10 from the last government. It will be reintroduced in the House in the near future, and this committee will be reviewing it. Our association made a presentation to this committee in 2006 and subsequently, in part of our pre-budget submission, in 2007.

The heart of this bill looked at closing off some offshore tax havens through changes to rules on non-resident trusts and foreign investment entity rules. Had the bill passed without amendment, pension plans and retirement savings would have been subject to tax, so over a trillion dollars in pension money would have been subject to tax.

This bill is not before the House right now, but we wanted to comment on this matter because it will likely be introduced in this session of Parliament.

Working with the Senate banking committee, the Department of Finance did issue a comfort letter that provided some exemption for pension plans. It is our hope that when this bill is reintroduced and this committee is reviewing it, you will see those exemptions for pensions such that pension plans will not be subject to any tax, in the event that they invest in anything internationally deemed to be a trust. We are confident that the Department of Finance is working on this initiative but want you to be aware that this is something that will likely be coming in the next legislature. If the amendment is not introduced, Canadians who have already been hit with losses in their retirement savings are going to be subject to tax.

The third point is that our association has always been in support of reduced barriers to trade, both interprovincially and internationally. The former government removed the 30% foreign content limit on RSPs, which we saw as a very positive development. This helps Canadians investing and their investment managers to diversify their portfolios and look at things both within Canada and abroad.

However, there is still a significant barrier that exists for Canadians wanting to invest internationally. Investments on certain foreign stock exchanges are not qualified for investment within RSPs and other tax-deferred savings plans. Even though the government has removed the foreign content limit, there is still a very limited number—about 35 to 40—of foreign exchanges that are allowed for RSP purposes. There are a number of very well respected, established foreign stock exchanges that are not presently available for RSP investment. The list is simply out of date and requires updating to reflect the fact that we are part of a global economy and that a part of diversification of investments is looking internationally and locally. That list needs to be updated.

Our fourth recommendation is this. The federal government and the provincial governments have been looking at modernizing some of the pension rules, which we very much support. The federal government recently released a pension paper entitled “Strengthening the Legislative and Regulatory Framework For Private Pension Plans Subject to the PBSA”. One key recommendation we made as part of our submission is the loosening of the pension rules, again in keeping with encouraging international investment and removing international barriers to investment. Right now there are very restrictive rules limiting the investment pension plans can make in specific companies and portfolios. We are simply asking that these rules be less restrictive and rely on a prudent person to allow investment managers—

Energy Efficiency Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, this comes from a member whose party leader said that he was not going to support the budget, before he even saw it. That is irresponsible.

We were faced with a very difficult decision. In Bill C-10 and in the budget there were some good things that the Liberals fought for. They fought for the credit through the EDC. They fought for a stimulus package. They fought for moneys through infrastructure. They fought for some changes to EI but not enough.

Then the government plugged in these other things that we found despicable. The government did not give us an option. It said we could change the bill but the bill would not pass and we would have an election.

We did not think that was in the best interest of our country. We did not think it was responsible for the nation to be deprived of the stimulus package and these other changes that we fought for. Therefore, we allowed the stimulus package to go through, but we will change the odious parts of this bill when we become government, which will be very soon.

Marine Liability Act

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the premise of that question, that the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act provisions that were included in the budget had nothing to do with the finances of Canada. It was not a budgetary matter. Why was it in that particular legislation? Canadians are just shaking their heads. They do not agree with that at all. It is the wrong way to go.

I understand that improvements perhaps should have been made. There are jurisdictional issues sometimes between the provincial legislation dealing with waterways and the federal legislation, but that could have been improved upon instead of just eliminating it altogether.

What should be done? Nothing has been done. As the previous speaker, the member for Mississauga South indicated, this is an issue of whether or not we just throw the whole thing out then suspend the House for six months and let it go through. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be redone by a new government. That is perhaps what Canada needs at this point in time, a new government.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-10, the government made a change. It attached changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to that bill which had nothing to do with the budget whatsoever.

The right of Canadians and indeed all people to have access to navigable waters has really been protected in law at the federal level. It goes way back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, but these changes are going to severely compromise the ability of Canadians to have access to navigable waters.

These changes that the government has put forward are potentially going to allow the government, by the minister's fiat, to remove whole sections of navigable waters and put them into private hands without any proper environmental assessment or any proper consultation whatsoever.

I would like to ask my friend this. Does he not think that the right thing for the government to do would be to go back, take those elements of Bill C-10 that dealt with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, send it to committee and address the Navigable Waters Protection Act in an open and transparent fashion to ensure that all Canadians from coast to coast can have access to the tributaries that we have always had access to up until now?

Artists

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I am glad my colleague said “Wow!” because this motion is very important and I am pleased to hear a Conservative member acknowledge that.

Given that the federal government poses a serious threat to artists, the Bloc Québécois believes that the entire culture portfolio should be handed over to Quebec as soon as possible. If the federal government does not care about culture, then let it say so and transfer the funds and the responsibilities to Quebec, as the Government of Quebec has requested, because Quebec will know what to do to support creativity and those who create.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to silence those who disagree, just as it did with Bill C-10, the court challenges program and the women's program.

Artists are free thinkers. They have to be. As such, they must be given appropriate, fitting opportunities to continue enriching social debate with their unique take on things. We have to do everything in our power to support their development. I hope that elected members of the House will agree with me that Motion M-297 aims to do just that.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the member's remarks, although at the same time, her party has been long on rhetoric and short on action. She says that nothing has been done. That is not quite correct. The facts show that a lot has been done and a number of initiatives have been taken not only through the budget but through funding.

Having a safe and affordable place to call home is important to all Canadians. It is fundamental to Canadians' well-being and it is important to communities. Our government has taken a multi-pronged approach with the specific purpose of providing housing for all Canadians from all walks of life in all parts of our country while at the same time stimulating our economy and ensuring that jobs are created. In Canada the housing needs of 80% of Canadians are met through the marketplace. Canadians use their own resources either by obtaining a mortgage and buying a home or by renting.

For those Canadians who need some help to find housing they can afford, our government provides $1.7 billion each and every year in support of some 630,000 existing social housing households. In September 2008, our government committed more than $1.9 billion over five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. Building on this, Canada's economic action plan will provide a significant investment of $2 billion over two years to build new social housing and to repair and energy retrofit existing social housing.

These investments will improve the quality of life for low-income families, aboriginal Canadians, seniors, persons with disabilities and people living in the north. These are real actions and real help for those who most need it. This new funding will also help the economy. Building and renovating homes is a good way to get people working quickly. Most of the materials and supplies for these activities are made right here in Canada. In order to ensure quick implementation of our action plan respecting these measures, we will use existing programs and agreements. In this way, funding for social housing projects will flow quickly to those who need the help most.

I am especially pleased that Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act, was passed and received royal assent recently. It was not without some opposition in the other house and members of the opposition stalling its passage. However, its passage means that these funds will begin to flow very soon and that will provide help to Canadians who need it the most and who live in social housing.

We know that housing builds strong communities. These communities need strong infrastructure to thrive. In addition, Canada's economic action plan will provide up to $2 billion in direct low-cost loans to municipalities over two years through CMHC for housing related infrastructure projects in towns and cities across the country. There will be a focus on funding projects that are shovel ready. As this is a targeted, short-term, temporary measure intended to create jobs quickly, it will happen as the funds begin to flow. The types of eligible projects include sewers, water lines and neighbourhood regeneration projects.

Our economic action plan also includes measures that support home ownership in the housing sector. Through the insured mortgage purchase program, CMHC will take further steps to ensure there is stable long-term funding to lenders, allowing them to continue lending to Canadian consumers and businesses.

In addition, both the housing sector and homeowners will benefit from several important measures our government is taking. These measures include the home renovation tax credit that will provide up to $1,350 in tax relief, the first-time home buyers' tax credit, funds to enhance the energy efficiency of our homes, and increases to the withdrawal limits under the home buyers' plan. These are very positive, concrete steps that our government is taking.

Opposition Motion—Vote 35 in Main Estimates 2009-2010

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support the special vote that is found in the main estimates known as vote 35.

As we have heard today, vote 35 is a $3 billion appropriation requested by the government for the Treasury Board to provide funding for initiatives set out in the economic action plan starting April 1. This is an extraordinary step taken to provide funding for departments that have projects that are ready to go right now. Many such initiatives are construction projects, which need to be started at the beginning of the season if Canadians are going to feel the positive effects in this given year.

There has been some confusion among the hon. members on the other side about the role of this $3 billion vote. I would like to shed some light on how this process would work.

Of course, there will always be those who prefer to muddy the waters so that Canadians and their members of Parliament are not clear about what the choices are, but I should think the hon. members opposite would appreciate my efforts in bringing clarity to this particular issue.

There are several challenges that need to be addressed with the economic action plan. These measures need to be dealt with by moneys that are put into place by this measure. One of them is the Budget Implementation Act, which provides funding for some of the economic action plan initiatives.

With this act receiving royal assent on March 12, the most important task at hand for hon. members is the passage of the main estimates. This is necessary to ensure that the measures provided for in the economic action plan, such as building roads and bridges, reducing taxes, supporting Canadians hardest hit by the economic downturn, and helping communities and businesses adjust and grow, will move forward now when they are needed the most.

Anyone who has ever invested money knows that the sooner one puts that money to work, the better it is. It is better to invest sooner, because the returns for that investment start flowing sooner and last longer.

When it comes to investing, time truly is of the essence. That is why we need vote 35 in the main estimates. It provides funding for a broad range of economic action plan measures that are not funded through the Budget Implementation Act but need access to money between the dates of April 1 and June 30. These include community recreational infrastructure projects, investments in first nations infrastructure, and investments in aboriginal skills and employment partnerships, just to name a few.

To ensure that departments can start funding these initiatives before this summer, we have requested the authority to make payments on these projects up to $3 billion.

This approach has been applauded by the International Monetary Fund. In a recent report, the IMF said that Canada's immediate focus should be on implementing the budget to mobilize spending.

This vote is necessary because the short time period between tabling the economic action plan on January 27 and the main estimates, which were brought forward on February 26, did not allow enough time for departments and agencies to seek funding for budget initiatives through the main estimates. Vote 35 allows the government to provide initial funding for ready-to-go initiatives until departments and agencies can receive funding through the normal parliamentary supply processes.

This really is bridge financing. It is simply a way of advancing the funding that would otherwise have to wait until supplementary estimates in June or even later.

However, make no mistake, we are accountable for this $3 billion. That is why we will table reports in Parliament on the status of the economic action plan initiatives, three more in this particular year: one in June, one in September, and one in December. The first report has already been tabled in the House.

In addition, the government will report on all allocations for the central vote as is the case for all central votes in subsequent supplementary estimate documents.

Finally, the Auditor General has indicated that she will be reviewing this process as well, and no one wants the Auditor General saying that money was not spent on what it was supposed to be spent.

This government has made accountability and transparency the cornerstones of its mandate and at this point we are not going to change our stripes. Our first piece of legislation was the Federal Accountability Act. Since tabling the economic action plan, we have cut red tape, taken extraordinary and unprecedented actions to ensure critical investments are not delayed--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to the hon. member's motion before us.

I must admit, though, that while I am typically very pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the chamber, today is quite a different story.

Today I rise with sadness at the hon. member's resolve to do his utmost to prevent the government from getting stimulus money to those who need it most.

While he continues to throw up roadblocks, I have to wonder if the hon. member is really not aware of the effect of his efforts on Canadians, Canadians who are trying to pull together enough money to make their monthly mortgage payments so they do not lose their homes, Canadians who may have to go to food banks because they do not have enough money to put food on the table themselves, Canadians who have asked their elected representatives to stop their political posturing and to protect them in their time of need.

Our government consulted widely with Canadians on what action to take. The result is an economic action plan to inject $40 billion into the economy over the next two years. This plan, tabled as part of the earliest budget in history, is designed to jump-start growth, to sustain the recovery, and to help Canadians in these difficult times.

In fact, it has been praised by the International Monetary Fund. In a recent report, they called it “large, timely, and well targeted”. They said our immediate focus should be on implementing the budget to mobilize spending.

We are acting through all available means to protect our economy and to protect Canadians affected by the downturn. That includes the tax system, the employment insurance program, direct spending by federal and provincial governments, lending by crown corporations, and partnerships with the private sector.

Only 42 days after the plan was presented, we had done all we could to make the plan fully operational by April 1. This is six to twelve months ahead of the usual budget timeframe.

Why are we so focused on putting this plan to work so quickly? It is because our plan is designed to boost the economy when it is needed the most: now and over the next 24 months.

What have we done to lay the foundation for the implementation of this plan? Virtually all cabinet policy approvals are expected to be in place by the end of this month. We are ready to roll out $12 billion in spending on roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure. We introduced the recently passed Budget Implementation Act, which includes $7.6 billion in spending authorities and seeks parliamentary approval of $2.4 billion in tax reductions for 2009-10.

We have tabled the 2009-10 main estimates, which include a new central vote. This vote will enable Treasury Board ministers to allocate up to $3 billion in funding directly to departments. These funds are for immediate cash requirements directly related to measures in the economic action plan. Every single eligible program or project must be approved by the Treasury Board. This funding is only until formal supplementary estimates for these initiatives have received the usual parliamentary approval.

This vote will be used to fund specific economic action plan measures such as building roads, fixing bridges, and providing skills training for those Canadians hit hardest by this global recession.

As a result of this approach, by April 1, we would have authority to proceed with providing about $20 billion in budget measures. This would represent close to 90% of the stimulus contained in the economic action plan for 2009-10.

Therefore, it saddens me to know that much of this work will be for naught if the hon. member has his way.

It also saddens me to know that despite the fact that our non-partisan public service has been working non-stop, day and night, to get this money flowing quickly, the hon. member continues to play partisan politics.

My constituents have made it clear that they want politicians to stop playing political games and get to work on their behalf. I suspect that all hon. members are hearing the same refrain from residents in their ridings. I suspect that is why the leader of the official opposition instructed his colleagues in the other House to pass the Budget Implementation Act after his party dragged its feet as long as it could.

Members know too well that none of the spending measures contained in the economic action plan can proceed without parliamentary approval. The Budget Implementation Act has finally been passed. To move forward with more stimulus measures, we must now pass the estimates. So what does the hon. member do? He throws up roadblocks to getting this money out to support Canadians hardest hit by the economic downturn. He throws up roadblocks to helping communities and businesses to adjust and grow in these extraordinary times. Instead, as we are cutting bureaucratic red tape, he wants to add more in the name of accountability.

We are the government that introduced the Federal Accountability Act as its first piece of legislation coming into office. The hon. member refers to the Auditor General. It was our Federal Accountability Act that strengthened the power of the Auditor General so she can more effectively hold the government to account for its use of taxpayer dollars.

Canadians want to be confident that the Government of Canada is working in their best interests. They expect elected officials and public servants to manage their tax dollars wisely, and they expect us to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct.

Is the hon. member really telling Canadians that our hard-working civil servants operate without any or the right controls in place? Does the hon. member think that Canadians want to have daily reports of every penny spent by their government?

We had no problem when the Liberal Party suggested reports every three months, so we said yes, but the hon. member cannot take yes for an answer. Now he is not satisfied with reports every three months. Now he wants daily reports.

Does the hon. member think the reports he wants just spring out of thin air? Does he not realize what a paper burden that will be?

Why does he want to divert our civil servants from examining projects, making sure of matching funds, getting the paperwork done and cutting the cheques? That is what Canadians want. They surely do not want our civil servants bogged down in redundant daily reports simply because the hon. member cannot wait until June.

One moment the hon. member says he knows the importance of speedy stimulus spending. The next moment he wants to bog down the process with extra paperwork. How shameless. How sad.

Our Federal Accountability Act provided Canadians with the open and honest government they deserve, one that acts responsibly, rewards integrity, and demonstrates accountability. That is the approach we live every day. It is the same approach that we are taking to these economic stimulus measures.

I stand today in this House and ask my hon. colleagues to reject this motion, and I call upon them to stop serving partisan interests and instead start serving those who elected us to this place.

Environmental Enforcement Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to speak to Bill C-16, the government's environmental enforcement act.

I would like to, first, congratulate the legislative drafting team at Justice Canada, through the legal services division of Environment Canada, for their hard work on putting together this very large bill.

I would like to thank all the Environment Canada officials who have worked on this feverishly now for several years, many of whom of course were originally involved in the drafting of the architecture of environmental enforcement in this country, 80% to 90% of which was accomplished over three successive Liberal governments. Many of those individuals I know personally. I know they have been working feverishly on this bill for many years and it is the culmination of so much of their investment in serving Canadians on this front. I would like to congratulate those officials on behalf of all parliamentarians for their good service.

This is really quite a sweeping bill. It is a 225-page document, with far-reaching consequences. Subject to study at committee, the official opposition intends to support the bill going forward. We do, however, have an awful lot of questions about the motivation behind the bill, questions around the constitutionality of the bill, and questions around the evidence that might or might not backstop this bill.

As I said, it moves to strengthen and standardize penalties that polluters across all of the federal government's environmental laws would face and it builds on the substantial architecture set in place by successive Liberal governments.

We know that requiring violators to pay to repair, for example, environmental damage on top of paying fines is an important step. It is a step in the right direction in ensuring that pollution is not just part of the cost of doing business.

We are also pleased the government is building on the 1995 environmental damages fund created by the former Liberal government. We wish only that the government was this aggressive and forward-looking, and prepared to build on the good work of the previous government on climate change. It is too bad it was not as aggressive and forward-looking on its climate change work.

In that regard, I would like to share with Canadians a few impressions of the official opposition about the state of climate change and the degree to which Bill C-16 might apply to the climate change crisis.

The parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out that the Species at Risk Act is being examined now by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a mandated five-year review, which the former Liberal government brought to bear for Canada.

We have heard from the critic from the NDP that there is an obvious and gaping omission with the absence of the Fisheries Act. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest that it is because it does not fall within the purview of the Minister of the Environment, I am not sure if that washes with Canadians. There are probably improvements to be made under the Fisheries Act and it is a mystery, still, as to why it has not been woven into these series of acts that are all being amended under this one bill.

However, the real elephant in the room for Canadians is climate change. How is this environmental enforcement act going to apply to the climate change crisis?

I feel for my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, because he is in a very difficult situation. I think the government is now in a very difficult situation because it has no climate change plan. The plan that it put forward under the last Parliament has been withdrawn. We have no regulatory framework. Eleven independent groups, from the C.D. Howe Institute to the Pembina Institute to RBC Dominion Securities to a series of third-party groups, have examined the government's claim that it would, for example, reduce greenhouse gases by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. Every single group, including Deutsche Bank, and every group that has examined the government's plan has simply said it will not work.

We have no plan and now we are waiting for the United States, where 535 Congress people are trying to craft a single cap and trade scheme for delivery to the president, and a renewable energy plan, but we have no matching plan to bring to the table.

We have a dialogue of the deaf because we have a government that purports to be in conversations, no “negotiations”, with the new Obama administration, but we see no independence being manifested by the government on behalf of this country. We are not acting like a sovereign state on climate change. There are no negotiations. There is no special envoy. The Minister of Finance does not know what the price of carbon is in the international markets. There are no timelines.

For that matter, we are not even sure what the government will do with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a legislative tool that was brought to bear by members of the opposition and forced on to the government after, of course, it withdrew its Clean Air Act from the last parliament because it was re-written and greatly strengthened by all opposition parties. However, the government did not like the bill, did not like the new improved Clean Air Act, so it did what it does best, it censured debate and it prorogued Parliament.

As a result, the new and improved Clean Air Act evaporated into thin air and the government is now without a climate change plan, waiting for the United States and not acting like an independent country. There are no negotiations. There is no envoy. There are no timelines. The Department of Finance has not crafted a tradeable permit scheme for this country, so we are now in a situation where, when we look at environmental enforcement, we are led to ask the question: why this and why now? If we are in desperate need of enhanced environmental enforcement, how will it apply to the single, greatest crisis civilization has ever known, and that is the climate change crisis and temperature increases? That is a line of questioning that we hope to pursue at committee with the government when we do see the bill there.

What has motivated the government? I believe it is motivated by good faith, but I also believe that it is part and parcel of the government's recent quarterly law and order communication agenda. That is okay because most Canadians know, as tens of thousands of them lose their jobs, that the government is not performing, when it comes to the economy, the way they expect.

The government has pursued an aggressive agenda, what I call a shock and awe law and order communications agenda. I hope, as one parliamentarian, that this does not fall prey to the government's penchant for Republican style law and order communication tactics. I hope this will survive that kind of approach and get to committee and be debated in a meaningful way.

If it is to be debated, then we need to see from the government some evidence. In so many of the law and order measures brought forward by the government, there is just so little evidence to backstop the proposed measures. There has been an awful lot of ideology, but there is not often a lot of evidence. Where is the evidence of the need for such sweeping reform on environmental enforcement, on fines, on penalties, on mandatory disclosure of corporate pollution, for example, and prosecutions? Where is the evidence that these changes will actually have an effect on pollution levels? We are not saying that it will not, but as a government, it has an obligation to bring forward the evidence to substantiate its claims.

The parliamentary secretary said fines are too low to be an effective deterrent. How many fines have there been in the last three and a half years of Conservative government? How high have those fines been? If the fines will be used for restorative purposes, what about pre-existing liabilities?

There are 38,000 to 40,000 contaminated sites in existence in our country as we speak. How will this environmental enforcement deal with pre-existing liabilities for the municipalities, cities, towns and regions across the country that are inheriting toxic sites, brownfields, blackfields, contaminated sites? Will this deal with that troubling issue?

The court may indeed order compensation and restoration payments. I believe there will be questions about constitutionality. There will be questions about the federal-provincial division of responsibilities. Courts can suspend or cancel permits for those who commit environmental offences. This is a good thing, a provision which did not exist before.

The registry of environmental offenders was referenced by the parliamentary secretary, so we get to publish names of corporate environmental offenders. What about the preponderance of Canadian companies that are not incorporated? Eighty per cent of all jobs in Canada today hail from small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 100 employees. How will they be brought into the fold? That outstanding question has to be answered as well.

Will the government inspire itself from the decade-old experience in the United States, where publicly-traded corporations have to reveal not only how much they are spending on corporate social responsibility, environmental sustainability, fines and prosecutions, but also have to disclose, for example, to what extent they are involved in litigation?

There is an agreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission that compels the sharing of information so institutional and retail investors in our capital markets can make better and more informed choices about where to place their investments. How will the bill deal with capital flows in capital markets so we can encourage investments in those companies and organizations with better environmental performance? That remains to be answered. That is the kind of evidence we need brought to bear with respect to the bill.

All offenders must now pay a fine equal to the benefit received as a result of committing the offence, in addition to paying the fine for the offence itself. What does that mean? How will that be monetized? How will that be quantified?

What if another Exxon Valdese were to occur or an on-land Exxon Valdese equivalent were to occur and Canada were to lose significant wetlands? Canada has 26% of the planet's wetlands. They are millions of years old and are perfect and free water and air filtration systems. If we were to have a significant tailings pond spill and lose, for example, pre-eminent wetlands in a sensitive region in the country, how is the court expected to monetize and calculate that loss of eco-service? The notion of natural capital is not something about which the government has ever talked.

The government continues to pretend that carrying capacity out there is limitless, that we can continue to put as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as we wish because it will keep assimilating it. We know that is not the case. This is an interesting measure. How exactly is the court going to order fining equal to the benefit received as a result of committing the offence in addition to paying the fine for the offence itself? Surely the government is not going to be instructing courts to ignore carrying capacity and eco-services in Canadian natural settings.

The good news about the bill is it began well before the last election in 2008. Officials have confirmed its drafting began some two and a half to three years ago. I hope sincerely that the bill has been inspired largely by the terrible example of what can happen when a jurisdiction begins to ignore environmental standards such as the example in the province of Ontario under a previous Conservative government, where four front line cabinet ministers of the present government served, as well as the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and fired half of the province's water inspectors, leading to the terrible disgrace and tragedy of Walkerton.

I hope the government is going to deeply study the O'Connor report and insist that the learnings that were derived are implemented fully in the bill. It is extremely important to learn from past mistakes, but I am glad to see the previous minister of the environment, who was a minister in that unfortunate Michael Harris government that gave rise to that Walkerton crisis and tragedy, appears to be learning from that past and unfortunate experience.

Those are some of my first comments, but I want to pick up on a theme raised by my colleague from Yukon. It is passing strange that just last week, on a break week, the Minister of the Environment was in Calgary announcing to Canadians that he was single-handedly going to decide how environmental assessment was going to be conducted in Canada going forward. It is interesting because the first environmental assessment brought into the country was in 1992 by the former Mulroney government. It was a fine and important step for Canada.

In the last Bill C-10 budget bill, the government laced it with nine poison bills, not the least of which was the Navigable Waters Protection Act changes. There again was zero evidence presented to suggest that it was necessary to give a minister of transport and infrastructure unfettered discretion to decide when and when not an environmental assessment ought to occur in a bill which is over 115 years old, an act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, set out originally to protect natural waterways in Canada forever.

However, it is worse because last week the Minister of the Environment stood up in Calgary and gave a speech announcing that he was going to go further. Without parliamentary notice, without public consultation, without engaging the committee, without anything apparently now under the guise of getting money out the door as quickly as possible for stimulus purposes, the Minister of the Environment was facilitating the undermining of environmental assessment. That is rich.

The Minister of the Environment has now announced that he will change the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, change the function of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to weaken EAs as they go forward. This is something that the opposition, as the official opposition, will not tolerate.

We will be watching and asking questions about how the government intends to reconcile so-called tough on environmental crime measures in the bill, while speaking out of the other side of its mouth and announcing that it is either poison building its budget bill by forcing changes to environmental assessment or the Minister of the Environment freelancing in Canadian society, saying that he knows best and he will decide how 20 years of environmental assessment practice ought to be changed without notice.

Those are the kinds of changes we will be protecting against. Those are the kinds of issues that we intend to raise. It will be very important now for the government to come to committee and explain to Canadians, to go back to what I was saying a moment ago, how the bill will take us one metre farther, one yard farther down the field in dealing with the elephant in the room, which it is unprepared to admit exists in the room. That is the climate change crisis.

Environmental enforcement is all for naught if we see a 3° to 4° centigrade temperature increase on this planet in the next 50 to 100 years. It is all for naught. The government now has to stop the window dressing and come to ground on the climate change crisis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 12, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 12th day of March, 2009, at 7:20 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the official opposition has many questions for the Thursday question and I will try to get to all of them.

Today we will continue debate on Bill C-14 on organized crime, which he mentioned. Following Bill C-14, we will consider Bill C-15, drug offences, and Bill C-16, the environmental enforcement act in that order.

Tonight we will complete the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Tomorrow we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-2, the Canada-European free trade agreement and continue with any unfinished business that carried over from today.

When the House returns from the constituency week, we will continue with the business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-9, transportation of dangerous goods, which was reported back from committee.

You can add to the list for the week we return, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7, marine liability, Bill S-3, energy efficiency, and Bill C-13, Canada grains, which are all at second reading and any bills that have been reported back from committee by then.

As to one of the questions that the member specifically mentioned, the last day in this supply period shall be on Tuesday, March 24, when the House will vote on supplementary estimates C, interim supply and the interim supply bill. As he noted, it is a very important day as these are the resources necessary to provide the stimulus to which we have all been looking forward and which Canadians are greatly anticipating.

Hopefully, the Senate will have passed the budget bill, Bill C-10 by then. In fact, as my colleague mentioned, my understanding is the opposition has suddenly discovered the parts of the budget bill that pertain specifically to the extension of employment insurance benefits, which will come into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. Therefore, rather belatedly, the Liberal senators have decided to work with the Conservative senators in the other place and get the bill passed expeditiously. I hope that takes place this afternoon. It would be therefore my hope as well that royal assent could take place as early as this evening and we would see that bill enacted as quickly as possible.

As to the reiteration of my colleague's support for Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, our two latest justice bills, I welcome his support and I appreciate that. We are open to moving these bills through all stages as quickly as possible. Failing that, we would look to put up a minimum number of speakers, as we have done on many pieces of legislation already in this session, to move legislation through as quickly as possible. The problem, as my hon. colleague well knows, is not with the official opposition on or of the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, but with the other two parties, which are unwilling to do so.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the usual Thursday question about House procedure for the next couple of weeks. We all know that next week is scheduled to be a week to work in constituencies.

Therefore, I would like to ask the government House leader specifically what he has in mind for tomorrow and then the week following the constituency work week. Specifically in that week, which day will he officially designate as the final allotted day in this supply period? That would be the day not just to deal with an opposition motion, but also the supplementary estimates and the appropriations act, dealing with interim supply. It is very important for the House to know in advance which day that will be.

Second, I would ask the hon. gentleman, again, if there would be a mood in the House, apropos some of the subjects dealt with in question period, to move expeditiously on Bills C-14 and C-15. It was over a week ago that the official opposition offered co-operation to expedite those two pieces of legislation dealing with gangs and drugs. We renew that offer today in order to move those items forward quickly.

Finally, with respect to Bill C-10, which is in the other place, as we understand the developments as of today, it is possible that the other place will today finish its deliberations with respect to the bill, at the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the government House leader if he could indicate when there will be royal assent arranged for Bill C-10. Would he expect that to happen tonight or tomorrow?